Which is:
Containers are not actually a _thing_. BSD Jail is a _thing_, Zones are a _thing_... Linux containers are just a particular configuration of _multiple things_.
PIDs in containers CAN be like PIDs in BSD Jails... if that is what you want. It's up to you to use what Linux primitives you want in your containers.
For example:
I can run a application in a 'linux container' that shares PID, user, and network namespace with the main OS.. and the only thing that is different is that the file system is namespaced. I can run cgroups without running namespaces. I can run namespaces without cgroups.
Now if you want to talk about _Docker containers_ then, yes, that is a _thing_, but it's just one of many different possible ways to have Linux containers.
to get a shell in the least isolated jail possible. It's that simple. Read the "Jail Parameters" section in `man jail` to see what you can add to this, e.g.:
sudo jail -c path=/ ip4.addr=192.168.1.123 command=/bin/sh
to isolate the IP address…
With ZFS, one can use a common "template" filesystem for jails such that updates to the userland or the ports tree only need to be applied to the base file system once and become visible in all jails (as far as I understand ZFS, at least).
To my knowledge, it is not possible to have a process be visible in several jails at once. Each process has a jail ID associated with it, and it is visible only inside the corresponding jail (and the host system, of course).
An appeal to authority in the form of a sarcastic reply really adds nothing to the discussion.
OP's comment on the other hand at least told me something about the person behind the article.
That said. I am now curious about comparisons between containers/jails/etc across various different metrics that people care about.
Also, what cool non-containerization uses of cgroups and namespaces have some of you gotten up to?
Please read the context to which I replied. That's usually the discussion someone is referring to when they mention 'the discussion' in a reply. The OP highlighted specific issues with the analysis in the article and then someone shit on it with a sarcastic reply.